Art Vandelay wrote:I'm not saying people shouldn't judge others, I'm saying that they shouldn't judge others based on how many sexual partners they have. I find it ridiculous. It's puritanical, dogmatic, and arrogant to do so.
It is certainly not dogmatic nor arrogant to suggest to someone that being promiscuous is unhealthy. It's proven. Look at any one of thousands, millions, of examples we have. Yes, you can point to other examples as well, but to call my ideas (as if they were my own anyway) of monogamy dogmatic and arrogant is inaccurate to say the least.
knapplc wrote:You’re fighting a losing battle if you want to try to stop people from making judgments. You do it, I do it, everyone does it.
We've already been over this. I'm not trying to get people to stop making judgments, I'm trying to get them to start making the correct judgments...you know, the ones that I make.
I'm not saying people shouldn't judge others, I'm saying that they shouldn't judge others based on how many sexual partners they have. I find it ridiculous. It's puritanical, dogmatic, and arrogant to do so.
No, it's practical. The more rampantly promiscuous women there are out there, the more likelihood there is of more and more welfare babies for our taxes to take care of. I don’t want to continue to support children that these women are indiscriminately having because they lack basic judgment skills. I am directly affected by their decision on how many sexual partners they have, and what level(s) of protection they choose or don’t choose to use. If I’m going to be asked to pay taxes to support them, I should have the ability to judge them.
It sounds like your problem is with women who have more children than they can support, and I agree with you that that is wrong. However, I don't think promiscuity should enter that discussion. Would you be less upset if a married couple had five kids who they couldn't support and ended up on welfare than if a single woman had five kids by five different men and ended up on welfare? As you hinted at, it's a question of being educated on--and practicing--safe sex techniques, not a question of how many partners someone has.
knapplc wrote:You’re fighting a losing battle if you want to try to stop people from making judgments. You do it, I do it, everyone does it.
We've already been over this. I'm not trying to get people to stop making judgments, I'm trying to get them to start making the correct judgments...you know, the ones that I make.
I'm not saying people shouldn't judge others, I'm saying that they shouldn't judge others based on how many sexual partners they have. I find it ridiculous. It's puritanical, dogmatic, and arrogant to do so.
No, it's practical. The more rampantly promiscuous women there are out there, the more likelihood there is of more and more welfare babies for our taxes to take care of. I don’t want to continue to support children that these women are indiscriminately having because they lack basic judgment skills. I am directly affected by their decision on how many sexual partners they have, and what level(s) of protection they choose or don’t choose to use. If I’m going to be asked to pay taxes to support them, I should have the ability to judge them.
It sounds like your problem is with women who have more children than they can support, and I agree with you that that is wrong. However, I don't think promiscuity should enter that discussion. Would you be less upset if a married couple had five kids who they couldn't support and ended up on welfare than if a single woman had five kids by five different men and ended up on welfare? As you hinted at, it's a question of being educated on--and practicing--safe sex techniques, not a question of how many partners someone has.
No - those are equal problems. Marital Status does not equal intelligence, unfortunately. However, the culture of promiscuity makes it more and more likely that we will have more and more children born into welfare, and I am sick of paying for it when the simple solution is to not have sex.
And to be clear - the ONLY reason I single out women in my comment is because they're the ones giving birth. It is the responsibility of BOTH persons engaged in the sexual act to ensure that there is no pregnancy unless the pregnancy is desired. Men do not get a free pass in my book.
Omaha Red Sox wrote:It is certainly not dogmatic nor arrogant to suggest to someone that being promiscuous is unhealthy. It's proven. Look at any one of thousands, millions, of examples we have. Yes, you can point to other examples as well, but to call my ideas (as if they were my own anyway) of monogamy dogmatic and arrogant is inaccurate to say the least.
QFT. It's not for no reason that I consider you one of the wisest men at the Cafe.
Omaha Red Sox wrote:a parent who displays promiscuity for a child to witness (not the actual act of course) is sending a message detrimental to that child. A helpless attempt to find happiness, a hopelessness that comes from failed relationship after failed relationship, a message that it is ok to be used and walked upon.
I don't accept the assertion that promiscuity necessarily lends itself to the outcomes you listed. Why does it have to be a helpless attempt to find happiness? Can't it be a successful attempt to find a little physical pleasure? Just because you aren't married to everyone you have sex with doesn't mean that those sexual relationships (or one night stands, or whatever other label they may fit into) are hopeless failures. Also, I find the idea that a woman who has multiple sex partners is being used or walked upon crazy, and frankly, a little misogynistic. It would seem to imply that a woman can't have sex for sex's sake and enjoy the physical pleasure that it gives her without being used by a man. That by appreciating sex you are somehow making yourself less of a woman and allowing yourself to be trampled by a man. I reject that notion.
Omaha Red Sox wrote:How is suggesting to a child to wait till marriage to have sex and don't have multiple sexual relationships detrimental to this child?
I don't think it is. I do, however, think it is detrimental to suggest that if you do otherwise, you are somehow morally or ethically corrupt.
Art Vandelay wrote:Also, I find the idea that a woman who has multiple sex partners is being used or walked upon crazy, and frankly, a little misogynistic.
Wow.
To imply that ORS is any kind of 'hater of women' is to have absolutely no understanding of who he is. I have known ORS for quite some time and find him to be very caring, loving, and honorable as it pertains to women.
His point is that promiscuity can often be damaging to self; and that Anna Nicole Smith has damaged herself, her children, her mother, her lovers, and the family of a 90 year old billionaire who she supposedly loved.
Yo, Met... thanks for the sig! GO DUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nfl Fan wrote:To imply that ORS is any kind of 'hater of women' is to have absolutely no understanding of who he is. I have known ORS for quite some time and find him to be very caring, loving, and honorable as it pertains to women.
I've engaged Omaha in plenty of debates here (most of them on the baseball side), and I play in a league with him...I know he's not a hater of women, and I assume that he is all of the things you mentioned. I didn't say he was a misogynist, and I wouldn't say that. What I said was that that was a misogynistic statement. It may be a subtle difference, but it's a significant one. Someone can make an idiotic remark without being an idiot, someone can make a racist remark without being a racist, and here, I think Omaha made a misogynistic remark. Doesn't mean I think he's a misogynist.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Omaha Red Sox » Thu Apr 12, 2007 12:14 pm 
